> > I'm not sure whether I agree with your proposal or not, but I > > think > > the most concrete way forward would be a proposal for specific > > wording for draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis, which > > Harald left on my plate and I left for Russ. That document is pretty much done. Indeed, it may be done. I had folded in some comments from IANA on the last respin. I'll have to check my notes to see if there is any other outstanding comment. My bad for not getting the process finished. > And that last clause -- i.e., the fact that document has not > progressed in three years or more -- may suggest either that (i) > if modifying it is the most constructive way forward, we have a > problem or (ii) that it is not an effective way forward, whether > or not it is constructive. IMO, completing this document is long overdue. It is a tremendous improvement over 2434. Some general comments on this thread. I understand the argument that some make that we should just give out code points in all cases, because otherwise we invite squatting. On the other hand, I do believe that withholding code points does prevent (in some, but not all cases) use of extensions that are potentially problematical. As one concrete example, other SDOs are generally hesitant to endorse/use protocols that have not been properly granted code points. This has been a carrot/stick in the past to get those SDOs to come to the IETF with the work rather than just having them "embrace and extend" our protocols. Do you think this is not useful/necessary or that it can be done in other ways? Also, if one thinks that code points should just be given out in all cases, how do we deal with stuff like RFC 3427? And, does this also mean, for example, that anyone should be granted ICMP code points? Are you really calling for essentially granting code points to anyone who asks? (That is what I hear when the bottom line is that the IETF can't say no, because, the reality is (IMO) that some only come to the IETF because they have to. They'd just as soon do their own thing and don't appreciate having their proposals get seriously reviewed.) Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf